I might agree that using Sex and Politics in the same sentence is a bit laughable. In fact I believe that sex and politics are something that should not be mixed, sort of like mustard and ice cream. All the same no one can ignore the degree of which politics has entered the bedroom and how much the bedroom is part of public policy.

I have a theory on sex laws that I would like to share with everyone who reads this:

All laws regarding consencial sex were drawn up by people who have adequet sex lives and want to make it very hard for those of us who do not have good sex lives.

Now notice that I did say consencial sex laws. This means that I am not talking about rape or molestation here. Rather what I am speaking of is the freedom of adults to express themselves sexually.

Now let me give examples of instances in which government policy sticks its nose into private affairs. These would be Sodomy Laws, which usually mean anti Homosexual laws, which were drawn up in the late 19th century, anti pornography laws, which are a hold over from the old time Comstock laws. There are anti prostitution laws which were supposedly designed to protect the virtues of young women. Finally there are public decency laws which forbid, among other things, public nudity, lewd dancing or displays of nudity or sex in public places.

If you were to ask me who is hurt by the laws I believe the answer is quite simple, its men. Cheifly its lonely men, men without normal sex partners, single men, divorced men, men in marriages where their partners refuse them sex, men whose partners are cheating and so on and so forth.

The public moralists in todays society see men in the categories as a threat to all that is good and decent. They follow the old Calvenistic idea that only through marriage and family can true virtue be found. They see any other form of sexual expression as a threat to all that they hold sacred. In doing so they have found a target for their wrath, the lonely single male.

The usual charge by both religious zealots and radical feminists is the same, pornography and prostitution degrade women. They point to instances where women are exploited, made into slaves and in some cases abused for the sake of pleasure.

My answer is this: Prostitution and Pornography have been around since the time of cave men. It will never go away. You can drive it underground but it will always be there. If you are truely interested in stopping young women from being abused and exploited than start by giving opportunities to women. Make it so that no woman will ever be forced to walk the street and hustle for her survival because its the only way she can survive. Opportunities must be made available so that all women can earn a respectible living. Single mothers should be given the ability to care for their children and provide for them withough being forced into any form of immoral work.

If this happens what will be left over will be women who are hooking by their own choice. We do, in fact already see many women who can earn better livelihoods who choose to become call girls simply because the money is better.

By legalizing the business several problems can be solved at once. First the trade can be driven into particular districts so as to keep it out of neighborhoods where it is unwanted. Second diseases can be controlled. Prostitutes can be licensed and educated in matters of safe sex. Next it can keep make the trade safer. It can keep teenagers and children off the streets. It can also be taxed. Tax money can in turn be used to help rehibilitate women who want to be taken off the streets. Finally it can eliminate the gangster eliment from the prostitution business. Women can hustle without being forced to live under the mob or under vicious preditory pimps.

Finally we are also seeing a terrible backlash against Pornography. I am not saying that there is some pornography that should not be banned, such as snuff films or child porn, where the actors are suffering psychological or physical pain, but rather porn involving adults. As long is people keep this stuff inside their own homes, where is the harm?

A rather well known feminist, who crusaded against pornography, I believe her name is Catherine McCormmick or something, said that pornography is not art but an aid to masturbation. My answer to that is so what? Isnt masturbation a normal response.

In magazines like Life, Time or Newsweek you can open pictures and see actual pictures of people being slaughtered. I saw a really ugly picture of Palestinian millitants lynching suspected collaborators in Bethleham (of all places). I ask anyone reading this here, what is worse? A picture of an attractive woman naked or a picture of a bloody dangling corpse?

Watch the news and what do you see? You see the aftermath of the Jenine refugee camps. You see chared remains of what were once human beings. You see death death and more death?

The act of copulation is the very act that begins all life. Some may argue that it is sacred and shoud be accorded a certain reverence. Perhaps thats true. But I dont think that depictions of violent death is at all reverent. War is an untimate act of evil, far worse than sex because sex is about creation of life, war is about destroying life.

Dont misunderstand me, I am not any kind of whoormonger, but an average guy. I dont go to strip clubs, I rarely buy dirty mags and styuff, I dont really care for porno, though I'm not offended by it ether. I just dont think its my business to tell others how to live their lives.

Now if you will tell me its against God that thats fine with me. If your God says its immoral to have sex with prostitutes, look at dirty pictures, oogle women or men with lust in your heard than dont do any of those said behaviors. I too believe in God and attach a certain reverence to sexuality. All the same I am also human. God gave me certain urges. I try to do what is right but I dont always do the right thing. All the same I am still an adult.

In the news I hear of people being stung by police. I heard one phony prostitute say that she was protecting families. I heard this and had to laugh. What the hell does busting some guy, who may or may not be married with kids, have to do with protecting families. Its really about control. This is more and more control over our lives.

Instead of trying to protect people from themselves how about letting people be adults.

For once I agree with you. :D

Originally posted by Ponycar_302
For once I agree with you. :D
Glad to hear that Pony. I am so glad other people read my posts.

Originally posted by Criminal
I might agree that using Sex and Politics in the same sentence is a bit laughable. In fact I believe that sex and politics are something that should not be mixed, sort of like mustard and ice cream. All the same no one can ignore the degree of which politics has entered the bedroom and how much the bedroom is part of public policy.


Sex and politics are integrally related, my opinion.

Originally posted by Criminal

I have a theory on sex laws that I would like to share with everyone who reads this:

All laws regarding consencial sex were drawn up by people who have adequet sex lives and want to make it very hard for those of us who do not have good sex lives.

Now notice that I did say consencial sex laws. This means that I am not talking about rape or molestation here. Rather what I am speaking of is the freedom of adults to express themselves sexually.

Now let me give examples of instances in which government policy sticks its nose into private affairs. These would be Sodomy Laws, which usually mean anti Homosexual laws, which were drawn up in the late 19th century, anti pornography laws, which are a hold over from the old time Comstock laws. There are anti prostitution laws which were supposedly designed to protect the virtues of young women. Finally there are public decency laws which forbid, among other things, public nudity, lewd dancing or displays of nudity or sex in public places.


Here I would say, that we're close in effect, but different as to probable motivation theories. I feel laws like these were designed not by people with adequate sex lives, but by hypocritical politcians serving a hypocritical populace. People wish to be viewed as being against these things, even when they in fact use them. ie: common day, men who actively work within the political sphere to restrict, shut down or move toplesses out of the city, yet are the same exact men who also frequent such establishments. Men who elect officials to do just that, who go to clubs. Know this one first hand.

Originally posted by Criminal

If you were to ask me who is hurt by the laws I believe the answer is quite simple, its men. Cheifly its lonely men, men without normal sex partners, single men, divorced men, men in marriages where their partners refuse them sex, men whose partners are cheating and so on and so forth.

The public moralists in todays society see men in the categories as a threat to all that is good and decent. They follow the old Calvenistic idea that only through marriage and family can true virtue be found. They see any other form of sexual expression as a threat to all that they hold sacred. In doing so they have found a target for their wrath, the lonely single male.

The usual charge by both religious zealots and radical feminists is the same, pornography and prostitution degrade women. They point to instances where women are exploited, made into slaves and in some cases abused for the sake of pleasure.


I believe you are wrong about the target. These are laws made by a patriarchal society and they target WOMEN. It's a control issue, my opinion. It's too involved that if I typed to all of it right now I could take up a whole page, but suffice it to say there exist laws on the books and they are designed to keep women "in line".

First of all you're looking at women earning 70% of what men do, then the high divorce rate, also oddly 70% now. So you have women left with babies and inadequate earning power to feed them. This works for men because the result is it keeps a steady stock of dancers and prostitutes available. These services not only provide men with a capacity to enjoy women shovelled into these professions, but additionally the women can be tossed into jail at any time. Most states and cities have a "lewd and lascivious" dancing code. It is arbitrarily enforced and specifically kept on the books to make sure all dancers realize where the power lies. Politicians like to pull that one out for election years to impress the voters.

Additionally, they can pull out the old "solicitation for drinks" which is a underling law for pure solicitation. It's considered prostitution to ask a guy to buy you a drink. Have you ever heard of a man being arrested for that? How about a woman in a regular bar? It was written for and is specifically enforced for women in toplesses.

Generally prostitution arrests are women, not men. Some neighborhoods do go into an uproar and I can actually see where people don't want street hookers in their neighborhood, but those are the only men who even stand a chance of being arrested.

It's all very complicated and touches on a lot of things but primarily I think the laws (and economic policies and actual enforcement of things like childsupport, or nonenforcement as the case may be) are designed to maintain a "stable" of objects for men to use.


Originally posted by Criminal

My answer is this: Prostitution and Pornography have been around since the time of cave men. It will never go away. You can drive it underground but it will always be there. If you are truely interested in stopping young women from being abused and exploited than start by giving opportunities to women. Make it so that no woman will ever be forced to walk the street and hustle for her survival because its the only way she can survive. Opportunities must be made available so that all women can earn a respectible living. Single mothers should be given the ability to care for their children and provide for them withough being forced into any form of immoral work.

If this happens what will be left over will be women who are hooking by their own choice. We do, in fact already see many women who can earn better livelihoods who choose to become call girls simply because the money is better.

By legalizing the business several problems can be solved at once. First the trade can be driven into particular districts so as to keep it out of neighborhoods where it is unwanted. Second diseases can be controlled. Prostitutes can be licensed and educated in matters of safe sex. Next it can keep make the trade safer. It can keep teenagers and children off the streets. It can also be taxed. Tax money can in turn be used to help rehibilitate women who want to be taken off the streets. Finally it can eliminate the gangster eliment from the prostitution business. Women can hustle without being forced to live under the mob or under vicious preditory pimps.

Finally we are also seeing a terrible backlash against Pornography. I am not saying that there is some pornography that should not be banned, such as snuff films or child porn, where the actors are suffering psychological or physical pain, but rather porn involving adults. As long is people keep this stuff inside their own homes, where is the harm?

A rather well known feminist, who crusaded against pornography, I believe her name is Catherine McCormmick or something, said that pornography is not art but an aid to masturbation. My answer to that is so what? Isnt masturbation a normal response.

In magazines like Life, Time or Newsweek you can open pictures and see actual pictures of people being slaughtered. I saw a really ugly picture of Palestinian millitants lynching suspected collaborators in Bethleham (of all places). I ask anyone reading this here, what is worse? A picture of an attractive woman naked or a picture of a bloody dangling corpse?

Watch the news and what do you see? You see the aftermath of the Jenine refugee camps. You see chared remains of what were once human beings. You see death death and more death?

The act of copulation is the very act that begins all life. Some may argue that it is sacred and shoud be accorded a certain reverence. Perhaps thats true. But I dont think that depictions of violent death is at all reverent. War is an untimate act of evil, far worse than sex because sex is about creation of life, war is about destroying life.

Dont misunderstand me, I am not any kind of whoormonger, but an average guy. I dont go to strip clubs, I rarely buy dirty mags and styuff, I dont really care for porno, though I'm not offended by it ether. I just dont think its my business to tell others how to live their lives.

Now if you will tell me its against God that thats fine with me. If your God says its immoral to have sex with prostitutes, look at dirty pictures, oogle women or men with lust in your heard than dont do any of those said behaviors. I too believe in God and attach a certain reverence to sexuality. All the same I am also human. God gave me certain urges. I try to do what is right but I dont always do the right thing. All the same I am still an adult.

In the news I hear of people being stung by police. I heard one phony prostitute say that she was protecting families. I heard this and had to laugh. What the hell does busting some guy, who may or may not be married with kids, have to do with protecting families. Its really about control. This is more and more control over our lives.

Instead of trying to protect people from themselves how about letting people be adults.

We pretty much agree on all of the above.

Originally posted by SpabSFW


Sex and politics are integrally related, my opinion.



Here I would say, that we're close in effect, but different as to probable motivation theories. I feel laws like these were designed not by people with adequate sex lives, but by hypocritical politcians serving a hypocritical populace. People wish to be viewed as being against these things, even when they in fact use them. ie: common day, men who actively work within the political sphere to restrict, shut down or move toplesses out of the city, yet are the same exact men who also frequent such establishments. Men who elect officials to do just that, who go to clubs. Know this one first hand.



I believe you are wrong about the target. These are laws made by a patriarchal society and they target WOMEN. It's a control issue, my opinion. It's too involved that if I typed to all of it right now I could take up a whole page, but suffice it to say there exist laws on the books and they are designed to keep women "in line".

First of all you're looking at women earning 70% of what men do, then the high divorce rate, also oddly 70% now. So you have women left with babies and inadequate earning power to feed them. This works for men because the result is it keeps a steady stock of dancers and prostitutes available. These services not only provide men with a capacity to enjoy women shovelled into these professions, but additionally the women can be tossed into jail at any time. Most states and cities have a "lewd and lascivious" dancing code. It is arbitrarily enforced and specifically kept on the books to make sure all dancers realize where the power lies. Politicians like to pull that one out for election years to impress the voters.

Additionally, they can pull out the old "solicitation for drinks" which is a underling law for pure solicitation. It's considered prostitution to ask a guy to buy you a drink. Have you ever heard of a man being arrested for that? How about a woman in a regular bar? It was written for and is specifically enforced for women in toplesses.

Generally prostitution arrests are women, not men. Some neighborhoods do go into an uproar and I can actually see where people don't want street hookers in their neighborhood, but those are the only men who even stand a chance of being arrested.

It's all very complicated and touches on a lot of things but primarily I think the laws (and economic policies and actual enforcement of things like childsupport, or nonenforcement as the case may be) are designed to maintain a "stable" of objects for men to use.




We pretty much agree on all of the above.
Those were excellent observations.

In light of the recent story of New York Governer Spitzer quitting i believe that this thread deserves to be bumped. :)